This Weblog or "Blog" contains articles, events and opinions that support capital punishment in North Carolina and elsewhere. Author(s) of the contents are exercising their rights to free speech which unfortunately is often stifled or ignored by the media.
Contrary to what you might read or hear in the news, North Carolinians should be proud that an occassional and deserved execution is allowed to proceed.
- Wayne Uber

Thursday, August 02, 2012

Death Penalty Costs: California

Responses to

1) An Absurd California Death Penalty Cost Review: A Rebuttal to
"Cut This: The Death Penalty"(1)

1) An Absurd California Death Penalty Cost Review: A Rebuttal to "Cut This: The Death Penalty"(1)

REVISED 2/27/13

NOTE: Clark is a Calif. ACLU activist and The California Commission on the
Fair Administration of Justice's (CCFAJ) is a Calif. government
commission.

Clark's/CCFAJ's cost review is wildly inaccurate and
misleading. I doubt that there is any more veracity to the death row costs than there is with their lifer cost evaluations.

Meaning - zero.

None of Clark/CCFAJ's numbers can be relied
upon.

Clark/CCFAJ says: "In total, California's death penalty system
costs taxpayers $137 million per year. Contrast that with just $11 million per
year if we replace the death penalty with permanent imprisonment." (1, b)

For
those 724 inmates, that is:

death penalty costs: $137 million per year or about
$189,000//inmate/yr. (1,b)

life imprisonment costs: $11 million/year or
$15,000/inmate/yr. (1,b)

It is complete, utter nonsense.

Some
reality:

The last full California audit (Sept 2009) found the average
costs, 2007-2008, per adult inmate was $49,000/inmate/yr. (2) In 1997, it was
$25,000/inmate/yr. (3).

NOTE: In 10 years (1997-2008) the cost/inmate rose nearly 100%. If that escalation of costs continued, the average cost would be an average of $65,000/inmate/yr by year end 2012, for the average adult inmate, not increased security cells and not including additional medical/geriatric care.

This $49,000/inmate/yr is the average for all
inmates, not the level IV security of death row inmate like criminals that will
cost more, if not much more.

For higher security inmates, which would include those transferred from death row, the costs range from $71,000 - $172,000/inmate/yr. (4)

Clark/CCFAJ is stating that these enhanced security prisoners will cost $15,000/inmate/yr., or $34,000/inmate/yr LESS than the average cost for all Ca inmates.

Clark/CCFAJ's
lack of credibility is at an astounding low level - zero.

"It is even possible that (death penalty repeal Proposition) 34 will increase costs, in addition to
endangering the public. It is not worth the gamble." (5)

Clark/CCFAJ get even worse.

Without the death
penalty, Clark/CCFAJ's select group of former death row murderers would likely
be in level IV security and, as lifers, would die as geriatric prisoners or from
earlier illness, likely costing on average $80,000-$100,000/inmate/yr., or more,
with a rare few costing a $1 million or more per year with illness and/or
geriatric stages.

But, for Clark/CCFAJ, former death row
inmates, now lifers, cost $15,000/inmate/yr.

Clark/CCFAJ get even worse.

Clark/CCFAJ will admit, if prodded (7) that "the figure
of $137 million estimates the entire cost of the death penalty system, not
simply housing, but also inclusive of all post-conviction costs, including legal
appeals."

In other words, Clark/CCFAJ is admitting escalating the death
penalty costs over the alleged cost comparisons of incarceration between lifers
and death row. Not at all surprising Clark/CCFAJ excludes such from the lifer
costs.

The Clark/CCFAJ's cost comparisons/evaluations are a very bad
joke. Instead of making an honest apples to apples cost comparison, Clark/CCFAJ
brings us a bad apples to newest Rolls Royce cost comparison, as if it were apples to
apples.

Because so many of these cost comparisons are so pathetically
unreliable, California considered that an objective assessment by RAND should be
considered (8). The basis for a proper evaluation was presented, but Ca rejected
doing the study, because . . . it was too expensive!

CONCLUSION - Save
even more money?

There is no need for California to have a death row.
Current death row prisoners can be placed in Level IV security cells, or lower/higher levels, depending upon evaluations, just as Missouri and Kansas
do.

California can make their death sentenced inmates cheaper than their
lifers, if they properly manage their citizens money, as Virginia does.
California must only have the will to be responsible stewards of their citizens
resources - something that seems to elude California lawmakers, just as basic,
accurate evaluations evade Clark/CCFAJ.

NOTE: Virginia
executes, on average, within 7.1 years and has executed 108 of those so sentenced, since 1976, or 72% of those so
sentenced, a protocol that would, on average, be less expensive than comparable
LWOP cases. Update: On 10/1/2015, Virginia executed a serial rapist/murderer. Through full appeals, it took 5 years from sentencing to execution.With responsible judges, as in Virginia, California would have about 100 inmates on death row, not 750.

Today, there is no reason for Ca death row to cost more
than level IV security and a proper evaluation would likely show death row
cheaper or no more expensive than Level IV.

There may be no cost
savings in getting rid of death row, with the exception that, if Calif had a
responsible death penalty protocol, there would be many more executed murderers,
thus reducing incarceration costs on death row, saving money on incarcerations
costs over other level IV prisoners.

Mitchell/Alarcón have made their study highly suspect by their refusal to share their database, which we can presume is unreliable, otherwise they would be happy to share it.

BUT . . . they confirm, up front, that it is unreliable.
"As the (CCFAJ) concluded
in the Final Report, “[I]t is impossible to ascertain the precise costs of
the administration of California’s death penalty law at this time. But the
choices that California faces require some comparison of projected costs; for
this purpose, rough estimates will have to do.” FINAL REPORT, supra note 4,
at 144 (emphasis added)." (10)

It's absolutely certain that the CCFAJ is horrible, as detailed, above. Therefore, we know the Mitchell/Alarcon study is even worse.

REALITY:

Rough estimates find that life without parole may cost more in California than the death penalty.

If the Paula Mitchell/Judge Arthur L. Alarcón study is accurate (and they tell you it's not, above -- "impossible" "projected" "rough estimates") and the
death penalty has cost California $4 billion since 1977 and there have been
2700 death penalty trials, that would mean, on average, the cases cost
$1.5 million/case, for pre trial, trial, appeals, incarceration and executions.

Approximately 900 have been sent to death row and about 2/3 of all death
penalty trials end with a sentence less than death, therefore 2700 death penalty trials.

Credit death penalty

If we calculated the cost savings by having the death penalty, of a plea
bargain to LWOP, only possible with the death penalty, such would be the cost of
trial and appeals of a LWOP case, deducted as a cost credit to the death penalty side of
the ledger and such would result in a lesser net cost per death penalty case.

This would reduce the average cost of a death penalty case by approximately $100,000, which I consider a wildy low estimate.

Increasing costs - death penalty

The 2/3 of cases that do not receive the death penalty, in a death penalty
trial, will still have appeals, but, most likely, not as extensive as cases
receiving the death penalty. If these cases were given LWOP, then the appeals,
incarceration and geriatric care costs will transferred to the LWOP side of the
ledger.

Necessarily, that would increase the average cost of the remaining 900
cases that were sentenced to death, by approximately $600,000 added cost per death penalty case for additional appeals, likely a high estimate.

Combined, this would increase the average cost of a death penalty case by $500,000.

Including those two cost consideration, the average death penalty case might be around $2 million

(adding $600,000 in additional appellate costs and subtracting $100,000 for the LWOP plea, adding, on average, $500,000/case for the 900 cases that received the death penalty.)

LWOP costs:

It seems that the incarceration costs will be considerably higher than pro
Prop 34 folks have told us, with costs spiraling, hugely, with geriatric
care.

If California ends the death penalty, all death row prisoners
who would become LWOP inmates, and based upon my review, above, it will cost around
$75,000/yr/inmate, on average, or about $3,000,000 total/inmate, for 40 years, a figure which
does not include pre trial, trial, appeals, geriatric care or inflation.

Including those additional four cost considerations, the average LWOP case would be approximately $3.75 million........

As Prop 34 is stating that LWOP will replace the death penalty, there is no
credit for plea bargains, because the Prop 34 folks are anticipating that those
previously subject to the death penalty will receive LWOP.

Obviously, anything short of LWOP will negate many of claims from the pro
Prop 34 folks.

It is hard to see where any cost savings may be if Ca ends the death penalty. As the former California Finace Director found, it may even increase cost - possibly by a considerable margin.

And of course, we do have a foundation of “It is impossible to ascertain the precise costs of the administration of California’s death penalty law at this time. But the choices that California faces require some comparison of projected costs; for this purpose, rough estimates will have to do.”

(2)
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation: It Fails to
Track and Use Data That Would Allow It to More Effectively Monitor and Manage
Its Operations, September 2009 Report 2009-107.1, California State Auditor,
pg 77, fiscal year 2007-2008, http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2009-107.1.pdf

(6) California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation: It Fails to Track and Use Data That Would Allow It to More Effectively Monitor and Manage Its Operations, September 2009 Report 2009-107.1, California State Auditor,
page 80, fiscal year 2007-2008, http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2009-107.1.pdf